Fallout 3

PC review by Matt Smith, published on Tuesday 4th November 2008

When I heard that Bethesda, the company behind the Elder Scrolls series, was going to be responsible for Fallout 3, I was more than a little skeptical. Now, I have nothing against Bethesda. I loved what I played of Daggerfall, I loved Morrowind, and I loved Oblivion. Their games have always had their fair share of quirks, but they never failed to suck me in. I played Morrowind for over two hundred hours before I put it down for good, and I played Oblivion for about a hundred and sixty. No other single player game can match that sort of longevity. But despite my love for the company, their decision to carry on the long-extinguished Fallout torch seemed like an odd one. The first two Fallout games are known for their unique atmosphere, great voice-acting, memorable characters, and interesting combat. The latter three traits are ones that Bethesda has never nailed down, and while the company showed they can make a memorable world with Morrowind, that was some time ago. Many long-time fans of the series Fallout also expressed these concerns. Would it simply be Oblivion with guns, or would the game stand on its own?

screenshot

As it turns out, answering that rather black-and-white question is difficult, as the the game has numerous hits, but also a few misses. Fallout 3 literally begins at your birth; you hear a heartbeat, and you’re in a cold, bright world, your father proudly looking on. The first half-hour to hour of game-play is spent in a prolonged introduction and tutorial nestled in the strangely Orwellian Vault 101. This sequence covers your childhood, allows you to select your skills and stats, and introduces you to your Pipboy, a sort of PDA which is used to manage your health, stats, inventory, and quests. Though longer than I would have liked, this intro is incredibly well done, and it immediately dispels any notion that Fallout 3 is destined to be as poorly written or voiced acted as Bethesda’s previous efforts. In fact, the introduction sequence of this game is far better than what can be found in either of the previous Fallout games, both of which were inflicted with boring, and in the case of Fallout 2, annoyingly difficult tutorials. The introduction can also be significantly reduced if you make the correct choices, which means that you won’t be forced to waste a significant amount of time getting into the meat of the game when you start a new character.

screenshot

Near the end of the intro, things predictably go wrong. Your dad leaves Vault 101, and the Overseer (essentially, the Vault’s dictator) is looking to extract revenge on you. With the help of your childhood friend, who also happens to be the Overseer’s daughter, you manage to escape. The escape itself isn’t tense or cinematic, but once you exit Vault 101, you’ll be greeted with one of the most awe-inspiring views to ever be seen in a video game. The DC Wasteland that stretches before you seems to extend forever, leaving little doubt that the world you’ve stepped into is one with endless possibility. Step down from your perch, however, and you’ll learn that the DC Wasteland is as dangerous as it is beautiful. Armed with only a few measly weapons, a handful of bullets, and no cash, you’re not well equipped for the wilderness. In this way, Fallout 3 is more reminiscent of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. than anything else. Ammo isn’t easy to come by. Your skills are low, so you’ll have a hard time hitting an enemy even when they are a few paces away. You have only a few items that allow you to recover health, and buying more isn’t an option, as you hardly have any cash to your name. As a result, the early levels of Fallout 3 are a difficult and challenging time. Venturing off to your first few quests is an adventure of its own, and if you run into any Super Mutants or other upper-tier enemies, you’ll probably have no choice but to run. There are moments of frustration to be found, but the result is a survivalist feel that sets the mood of the entire game. The DC Wasteland is no wishy-washy fantasy land, nor is it a testosterone-fueled playground for blood-thirsty beefcakes. It is a deadly serious territory, filled with survivors, mutants, and radiation.

screenshot

The main quest continues a short ways from the exit of Vault 101, and during its course you’ll visit numerous locations strewn across the vast landscape. On the whole, it is merely an average campaign. The voice acting never ceases to be superb, and the characters you meet are relentlessly interesting, but it is also inflicted with a few flaws that Bethesda has always been plagued with and has yet to correct. The characters in Fallout 3 move like two-by-fours kept together by door hinges. Legs and arms swing stiffly whenever a character walks or runs, and the animations which occur during conversations between characters are so generic that I have to wonder if the company actually employs any animators, or if they simply purchase some kind of stock package from Acme Animations, Inc. This is less apparent when you converse with characters, but it becomes an annoying distraction when viewing other characters having a conversation. The scripted in-game events are even worse, marred not only by the poor animation but also but ridiculous pacing. About mid-way through the game you’ll find yourself watching a storyline event which results in several deaths. This event is obviously meant to be dramatic, and the writing and voice-acting is up to task. But the characters involved pause awkwardly before responding to each other, and their gestures towards each other are more appropriate for characters discussing the benefits of a higher-fiber diet than a life-or-death situation. There are many instances where these sorts of faults re-occur, and as a result the main campaign of Fallout 3 is the nightmare that die-hard Fallout fans were hoping it wouldn’t be.

But it be honest, it hardly matters. While the events which propel the main story of Fallout 3 are universally awkward, the backbone of great characters and good writing remains throughout. The main storyline may be only average, but the side-quests range from pretty good to quite stunning, and though there is some repetition in the indoors level design, it isn’t enough to be distracting. What this all means is that while Fallout 3 has an inferior story in comparison to the first two games, the actual setting is the best of any game in the franchise. In the the first two Fallout games, the story was essentially the reason you played the game. They were extremely linear, and though there were moral dilemmas, they were completely black and white and also quite linear. Side-quests often came across as chores, necessary only to level up or to gain access to a game-play feature that should have been there from the start. Fallout 3 is entirely different. This is a game you play to immerse yourself in a world. Exploring, meeting friends, making enemies; this is what the game is about. And at that it excels, offering location and characters that are superior to not only anything in the franchise, but also to almost every other role-playing game ever made.

screenshot

Of course, there is one other key aspect to the game, one just as important as questing and exploring; combat. Early game-play videos of Fallout 3’s combat were far from promising. Scratch that - they were criminally boring. This game uses the same engine as Oblivion, and there is a general clunkiness that remains. Worse, the accuracy of your weapons are partially effected by invisible skill checks, which causes you to miss shots you would have otherwise landed. But there is also the V.A.T.S. mechanic, which allows you to pause combat and target specific body parts. I was one of many who speculated that it would turn into a gimmick, included only to pay homage to the turn-based combat available in the earlier games. I was very, very wrong. The V.A.T.S. mechanic provides an island of relief in a game where combat is typically fast, savage, and hectic. Turning a corner to find a Super Mutant or two staring at you poses a serious threat, particularly if one of them is carrying something like a flamethrower or a sledgehammer. Faced with that sort of danger, its difficult to prevent yourself from firing blindly in hopes that the green giants die before they light you on fire or make burgers with your face. V.A.T.S. gives you the chance to calm down, assess the situation, and decide on a plan of action. If you’re outmatched, you can try to cripple their legs and run. If you’re afraid of the flamethrower an opponent has, you can try to knock it from his grip. The slow-motion execution of your actions never gets old for the very same reasons; if it weren’t for V.A.T.S, you might never get a moment to appreciate just how wonderfully gory this game can be.

screenshot

It must be said that even when using V.A.T.S., a feature which is unlike anything in the Elder Scrolls game, there are numerous things about Fallout 3 which immediately tips you off to the fact that this is a game made by Bethesda, the brains behind Oblivion. You’ve probably figured this out, as I’ve referenced Oblivion nearly as often in this review as I have referenced the Fallout franchise. The similarities can be so intense that Fallout 3 sometimes feels more like a professionally constructed mod rather than an entirely new game. It is strange, then, that Fallout 3 also offers a more compelling and unique world than any other game in the Fallout franchise. This is the game’s paradox; it is both derivative and unique. Visualizing this paradox will be difficult for gamers who only remember Oblivion’s generic fantasy world, but easier to deal with for those who can recall its predecessor, Morrowind, a game which featured one of the most interesting and unique fantasy settings ever created. If anything, Fallout 3 serves as return to form for Bethesda. Yes, Fallout 3 has a weak story, but it far exceeded my expectations by presenting a world more detailed than any other entry in the franchise. Fallout 3 presents the DC Wasteland as a tangible place, with landmarks, characters, and history, and in doing so the game represents a new direction for the franchise, one that relies less on linear storytelling and more on immersion, and while this re-imaging may be a bitter pill for old-school Fallout fanatics, those willing to let the series explore new horizons will come away satisfied. I hesitate to say, at this early stage, that this is actually a better game than either Fallout 1 or 2, but it very well may be; at the least, it is game-of-the-year material.

Thunderbolt score: ten out of ten

Players: 1

Subtitles: Optional

Online: No

Comments

aquinas
wrote on Tuesday 4th November 2008

It is blatantly clear that this reviewer has never even played the original Fallout games. Comments regarding the original Fallouts being "linear" and "black and white" are utterly preposterous. In comparison to the earlier Black Isle Studios Fallouts, Bethesda's Fallout has: One-dimensional, illogical and forgettable characters with little to no personality. Simple, linear, unoriginal narrative. Poorly-written narrative. Poorly-written dialogue. Poorly-voiced dialogue. None of the series' trademark moral ambiguity. No real freedom (there are unkillable NPCs, unavoidable combat etc.). No real choices or consequences. Tactical combat has been removed. Importance of skills/perks/traits removed. Traits removed. Psychologically and emotionally complex quests no longer present. Nuclear power was a feared thing in post-apocalyptic Fallout, and the issue was dealt with intelligently with much subtle social commentary. In Fallout 3, you can shoot nuclear-powered cars with your nuclear catapult early in the game, in a town built around an unexploded nuclear bomb. Fallout 3 fails to deal with any of the interesting human issues that Fallout did. The game lacks any semblance of thoughtfulness. It's also shorter. And easier. The game abuses and contradicts established lore. Fallout 3 fails to even pathetically imitate it's decade-old predecessors' design, originality or meaningfullness. Let alone exceed it.

Even when considered, unfairly, outside the context of being a sequel, it is an exceptionally arrogant, incompetent and poorly designed game all on its own. The animations are clunky and awkward. AI is atrocious. Combat is awkward. World textures and character models are ugly and lacking. Art direction is poor. Much of the crowded "wasteland" is sloppily and lazily copy-pasted from place to place. The musical score is uninspired and in the of LOTR-esque epic-fantasy - which is completely inappropriate in this game's setting. To top it off, the whole thing is buggy and poorly optimized. And Bethesda's attitude towards the original games' fans has been utterly pathetic. Not to mention their control-tactics over the complete facade that is gaming journalism, as evidenced here. This review is an affront to and utter travesty of real journalism.
aquinas
wrote on Tuesday 4th November 2008

Furthermore, a rating of 10/10 equates to "perfect", by the way. Which is, frankly ridiculous. Particularly when the review actually notes numerous flaws in the game.
Hom
wrote on Tuesday 4th November 2008

Mind telling us where on our site does it state that 10 equates to "perfect"? Because I can't find it.

Thanks.
aquinas
wrote on Tuesday 4th November 2008

Where on your site? How telling that your target audience seem to require a definition for "10/10". Is your site going to redefine some of the physics constants of the Universe too?

Classically "10/10" (another way of saying this would be "100%") tends to have been defined by things like "full marks" "perfect score" etc.

"100%" generally indicates that you haven't done anything anywhere to cause you to lose marks.

If your site has an interpretation of "10/10" that doesn't align with general consensus, perhaps it would have been good practice to indicate that to your readers somewhere. Wouldn't want to be misleading.

It's really isn't up for debate, though. You should feel able to deal with the _actual_ points I raised, without seeking recourse in ambiguity which isn't really there. You did write the article afterall. Can you defend it?
aquinas
wrote on Wednesday 5th November 2008

An ambiguous ratings system is a meaningless one. It was nice of you to indicate the meaninglessness of the "10" the game got, however.
Hom
wrote on Wednesday 5th November 2008

It's simply the most marks we can award on our given scale. The majority of sites and magazines do not state 10 as being "perfect", and you'll struggle to find me 5+ places (and I'm talking popular websites and magazines) that do - using a 1-10 scale.

To put it in a way even you should be able to understand, a 10/10 = ten.
Claw
wrote on Wednesday 5th November 2008

"In the the first two Fallout games, the story was essentially the reason you played the game. They were extremely linear (…)"

Say what?

In Fallout, you were given a direction leading into a dead end. From then on, you were on your own. Linear?
Also, anyone who'd play either of the first two Fallouts for its story would be disappointed. Fallout 1 and 2 were about the character's adventures in the wasteland, with a rudimentary "mainquest" that served mainly as basic motivation to get going.
Matt Smith
wrote on Wednesday 5th November 2008

A 10 is the highest score a game can get. It indicates that it is as good as a game can be expected to be. It doesn't mean it is perfect, obviously. No game is perfect, and to have a score you never intend to actually use is absurd.
aquinas
wrote on Wednesday 5th November 2008

"It's simply the most marks we can award on our given scale. The majority of sites and magazines do not state 10 as being "perfect", and you'll struggle to find me 5+ places (and I'm talking popular websites and magazines) that do - using a 1-10 scale. To put it in a way even you should be able to understand, a 10/10 = ten."

You seem to be admitting that a 1-10 scale is limited. Why then, does your site adopt such a scale? Why not 1-100? The game could then get 99 (which would still be utterly unfair, but a god start nevertheless). I'm more than familiar with the word "ten". Even I understand that ratings have some form of contextual meaning that extends beyond a mere word. Or perhaps your particular score does not? I hope your management are aware of the disservice you do to your site's reputation by patronizing its visitors, as well.

If I make a single mistake in a math exam, I don't get 100%. If your ratings system fails to align with the global consensus on what is meant by "100%", then it is a failed system.

It's telling that you have failed to actually address any of the issues that I, and others it now seems, have had with your review - instead choosing to distract people with a ridiculous debate over semantics.
aquinas
wrote on Wednesday 5th November 2008

"A 10 is the highest score a game can get. It indicates that it is as good as a game can be expected to be. It doesn't mean it is perfect, obviously. No game is perfect, and to have a score you never intend to actually use is absurd."
Granted. However, it is equally absurd to have a ratings system where anything below 7 indicates the game is horrendous, and a sizable proportion of games all find themselves equated at 10. This not only suggests the games are equal, but suggests they're all of rare, exceptional quality.
Hom
wrote on Wednesday 5th November 2008

"global consensus on what is meant by "100%". I'm sorry, but you never did give me specific examples to prove that a 10/10 does mean that a game is perfect. That's probably because no site does. And once again, you're picking words to form your own points; I have not once claimed that a 1-10 point scale is a limited rating system. I can assume you've berated the many, many other places as well for their reviews and ways of scoring games then? Because none of them state that 10 means a perfect game by the way, and that's because "general consensus" is that it doesn't. And how am I distracting people when I'm simply replying to something you said? You stated that a 10 should mean "perfect", I just corrected you. And apparently, you can't provide links to other game sites and magazines to prove me wrong. And I'm sorry if you feel patronised, but I'm not going to let you launch a scathing attack (which is what it is) on another staff member and have it go unanswered. The only reason you think it's a "failed system" is because it doesn't suit you personally.
Bart
wrote on Wednesday 5th November 2008

"This review is an affront to and utter travesty of real journalism."

Sorry, but this is hilarious. A journalist faking credentials is a travesty. Someone fudging sources is a travesty. A gamer having an opinion on a piece of computer entertainment is not a travesty. If you feel this strongly about a review, heaven help us when you find out what's going on in the real world.
aquinas
wrote on Wednesday 5th November 2008

When I said global consensus, I meant outside of game journalism. It is a failed system because a "10" apparently means something entirely different for game journalism than it does in every other grading system. The only logical reason I can think of for such a difference is that gaming ratings systems are, for reasons unclear, constructed to be misleading. Interestingly, this was not alwasys the case. 100% USED TO mean the same thing in games as it did in other grading systems. As a result, five to ten years ago, a game scoring "100%" was an *exceptional rarity*. I mean, it practically NEVER happened - because no game was "perfect". Now, it seems that every big release basically gets a 10/10, equated in perfection. There is also consistently a massive offset between positive critical reviews and user reviews. Just look at Metacritic - almost every single game that has made it on the top 20, but been released in the last five years, shows a major discrepency between critic and player opinion. This nearly always manifests itself with user reviews notably far more negative than the critics. Often reviews note many flaws in the game and then slap a 10/10 on it anyway. Funnily enough, if we take Fallout 3 as an example, Critics average 9.3, while Users average 7.5. Same offset that we apparently see there for BioShock, Far Cry 2, Crysis and basically any game released in the last five years that saw an overwhelmingly positive reaction from critics. That other sites use the same flawed system is no argument against the fact that your site should aspire to greater things.

I made comments about it being an affront to journalism, because frankly, the writer makes several claims about Fallout and Fallout 2 (them being linear etc.) that are simply not true. It seems fairly obvious he hasn't played the games. This should be a requirement, if only for research purposes…

To say that the comment "Fallout is linear" cannot be untrue because it is just an opinion is as ridiculous as to say that I am not wrong if it is my opinion that the moon-landing occurred in 1643BC. In that case I would be simply wrong. Fallout is quite possibly the least linear title in PC gaming history. And it is _profoundly_ less linear than Fallout 3.
aquinas
wrote on Wednesday 5th November 2008

On Metacritic:

Bioshock
Critics: 9.6
Users: 8.1

Oblivion
Critics: 9.4
Users: 7.5

GTA: SA
Critics: 9.3
Users: 7.8

Crysis
Critics: 9.1
Users: 7.7

Battlefield 2
Critics: 9.1
Users: 7.7

Far Cry 2
Critics: 8.8
Users: 6.0

Fallout 3
Critics: 9.3
Users: 7.5

So it would appear as though the game industry IS, in fact, using a ratings system that does *not* align with global consensus regarding the meaning of a 10/10 or similar score.

Here's some games that were reviewed in the 90s:

Fallout 2
Critics: 8.6
Users: 9.5

Plancescape: Torment
Critics 9.1
Users 9.8

Deus Ex
Critics 9.0
Users 9.5

System Shock 2
Critics 9.2
Users 9.0

Baldur's Gate II
Critics: 9.5
Users: 9.3

What changed?
Kobold Warrior
wrote on Wednesday 5th November 2008

Thunderbolt uses an integer grading system. Therefore, if a game is rated a NINE on this site, that game could have been anywhere from a 8.5 to a 9.4 on scale used by a place like IGN.

So, if a game is rated a TEN on TB, it could have been a 9.5 equivalent on the IGN style rating scale. Is a 9.5 100%? Nope.

Case closed. Problem solved. Issue obliterated. Moving on.
aquinas
wrote on Wednesday 5th November 2008

So is there any logic behind using an integer grading system, then? I mean I'm assuming a group of people sat down at a table, put some thought into it and decided things were better this way, right? I'm curious to know what their reasons were, because it sounds like a terribly inadequate system to me. "Because that's the way it is, so nerrrr" is not exactly a fantastic attitude.
Matt Smith
wrote on Wednesday 5th November 2008

Aquinas, if you enjoy Fallout 1 and 2 so much, I suggest you play those games.
This review, however, is about enjoyment of Fallout 3, and it stands: Fallout 3 is an excellent game. Different, but as good as the originals, and perhaps better. All you want explained has been explained, and at this point you are playing the troll.
aquina
wrote on Wednesday 5th November 2008

Something told me you were not going to be able to rationalize your flawed ratings system. As for "everything" being explained: I never really cared about the score, and I'm sure you know this. What I made clear I would _really_ like explained was your comments about Fallout and Fallout 2 being linear, having a dominant narrative and being morally black and white. If you had played Fallout, you would know these are so glaringly false it isn't funny. These inaccuracies in your review were never addressed. Instead, they were sidestepped as the discussion was strategically steered into debate over the arbitrary rating you assigned to the game. My main question was never about the ratings, which I merely made fleeting mention of. Fallout and Fallout 2 are inextricably less linear than Fallout 3, have less emphasis on narrative and are have far more instances of moral ambiguity than does Fallout 3. That Fallout is less linear than Fallout 3 is no more opinion than it is opinion to say that the sky is blue.
Matt Wadleigh
wrote on Wednesday 5th November 2008

Those games do have non-linear elements. I've played Fallout and so has Anthony Karge, another staff writer on this site, and we've had several discussions about how the first Fallout games and how we had no idea what to do at first. I believe Anthony even managed to ruin the game in the first 15 minutes by making a bad decision, forcing him to have to start over. However, as far as the actual storyline goes, it is very linear and has to be completed in a very strict order. If I had to guess, without being the author, this is what I imagine he was hinting it.
Mark
wrote on Wednesday 5th November 2008

With respect many, many reviewers use the 1-10 system. Yes using .5 is more accurate but then again it isn't really needed apart from to further seperate games. Either way you look at it a 9/9.5/10 game is going to be great.

As for the score of this game it's how good the reviewer thought it was on a whole. If the glitches and bugs don't greatly affect anything then why shoulld it be down marked?
Damon
wrote on Thursday 6th November 2008

Maaaan people who argue with reviewers are pathetic. We get it Aquina– you're a raving fanboy over some broken and disposable games from the 90s that nobody really cared about. Fallout 3, on the other hand, is epic, accessable, and more or less flawless. Matt doesn't owe you any sort of explanation; his opinion of the game is a state of mind, not an argument, therefore you have no ground to speak.

Leave.
aquinas
wrote on Thursday 6th November 2008

I have always understood journalism to be based around the presentation of impartial facts, not the giving of opinions. You know, like "this is better than Fallout 2".
James Frazer
wrote on Thursday 6th November 2008

Clearly you have never read The Daily Mail!
Josh Kramer
wrote on Thursday 6th November 2008

…when a girl walks in with an itty bitty waist and a round thing in your face, you get…SPRUNG
jhol
wrote on Thursday 6th November 2008

Somehow I have a sinking feeling that aquinas is from NMA!
Stop trolling and shut up.
Matt Smith
wrote on Thursday 6th November 2008

If game reviews arn't about opinions, then I'm the Sultan of Alabama.
aquinas
wrote on Thursday 6th November 2008

How telling that you have *still* failed to address the actual issue that I, and at least one other, has had with your review. To say that the comment "Fallout and Fallout 2 were linear" cannot be wrong because it is opinion is as ridiculous as suggesting the comment "the moon landing occurred in 1643 BC" cannot be wrong because it is an opinion. "It's just my opinion" is a ridiculous catch-all get-out-of-argument free card that removes all responsibility you have to be logical.

As it stands, your article makes some statements that are simply factually incorrect, and you apparently have no intention at all of even discussing it with your readership. That's a pretty poor reflection on Thunderbolt. Remember, I am not the only person who has noted the inaccuracies in your article.

So, tell me. How does it work? You give Bethesda a 10, Thunderbolt gets advanced review copies of Bethesda's next game? Throw in lots of positive adjectives and you may even get an exclusive? How does it work?

You may be able to get away with it with your majority spastic demography, but know that there are some out there for whom your transparency is so obvious it's embarrassing.
Bart
wrote on Friday 7th November 2008

"How does it work? You give Bethesda a 10, Thunderbolt gets advanced review copies of Bethesda's next game? Throw in lots of positive adjectives and you may even get an exclusive? How does it work? You may be able to get away with it with your majority spastic demography, but know that there are some out there for whom your transparency is so obvious it's embarrassing."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Oh, I'm sorry, let me rephrase that -

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Ha… ha… ha.

Advance copies? Exclusives? Take a look around you. We're a volunteer driven organization and Bethesda doesn't give a flying Fallout about what kind of score we give their games. I'm sure in your dramatic world where a mistake in a review constitutes a journalistic jihad, it's easy to come to the conclusion that Bethesda is some giant evil mob boss tossing us coins to perform cartwheels, but seriously man. Buying off an exclusive? Yeah, alright, when Bethesda gives us a ring about The Elder Scrolls Xtreme: Space Marine Edition, I'll be sure to let you know.
Matt Wadleigh
wrote on Friday 7th November 2008

As an actual journalist in real-life, I do appreciate your attention and dedication to journalistic integrity. I assure you, however, that we never accept review code in exchange for favorable scores. Our policy is simple: if a developer spends the code, put yourself in the shoes of the gamer who did purchase it and rate the game as if you spent $59.99. You may not always agree with the content of a review or score that a game is given, but you have my word that you can always trust the honesty of our reviewers.
Matt Smith
wrote on Friday 7th November 2008

I really hope Bethesda gives me their next game for free. Aquinas - could you perhaps email them for me?
Sean
wrote on Friday 7th November 2008

Whoaaaaaa Damon, easy on the disposable games from the 90s. Admittedly I am a Fallout fan from the day, but even if you weren't a fan you should be able to recognize they were quality titles.
aquinas
wrote on Friday 7th November 2008

I don't have a great deal more to add to this. It seems as if Matt Smith is unable, or feels no responsibility to defend his work - which *does* contain several factual errors. I'm not sure which is more embarrassing: unwillingness to correct your writing, inability to defend it, or the unprofessional manner in which you have mocked legitimate complaints in the comments section, Matt.

I would like to say thanks to Mark Wadleigh, however. I appreciate your reasoned, respectful response.
Matt Smith
wrote on Friday 7th November 2008

Your whisper sweet nothing into my ear.
aquinas
wrote on Friday 7th November 2008

Pretty poor of you to cancel out Mark's comments about consumers being able to trust Thunderbolt's reviewers. What a poor way to represent your company. Your arrogant and childish "na na na na naa, I'm not listening!" attitude does a disservice to the reputation of your employer. You make Thunderbolt look like a joke.
Matt Smith
wrote on Friday 7th November 2008

Never change. Never.
Patrick Coakley
wrote on Friday 7th November 2008

Honestly, as a fellow TB writer, it's hard to decide whether or not to really talk about older entries in a franchise with a review of a newer game if you're not familiar with it, and it seems like this might have been the case here. You might want to have left out the stuff about FO1/2 because it does come off as a bit misinformed. I'm not necessarily slighting your review, and while some of the people are going about it the wrong way in an aggressive manner, it does stand out a bit.
Adam R
wrote on Friday 7th November 2008

Dear Aquinas

If you are correct in the assumption that a score should be as accurate as possible, how come we haven't seen any recurring decimal reviews yet? Well done Matt for realising there isn't any point in rising to this guy's arguments because he will keep whining anyway. Find a different website, sir.
aquinas
wrote on Friday 7th November 2008

Adam, if you'd actually read my remarks you would know that I care little about the score (even though it *is* ridiculous. It doesn't need to be a recurring decimal, but it would be nice if "10/10" in their ratings system actually reflected what the real world considers to be meant by "10/10". And looking on metacritic - it clearly does not.). I do feel that the actual *contents* of a review should be as accurate as possible, however. This article plain and simply isn't. Now that even one of his colleagues has noticed it, are you still going to disagree?
Bart
wrote on Saturday 8th November 2008

Drop it, aquinas. Honestly, this is a petty fight that has no bearing on anything important.
Matt Smith
wrote on Saturday 8th November 2008

Patrick, what is misinformed? Nothing in the review is counter-factual. The intros in Fallout 1 and 2 suck horribly. The games were mostly linear, and UNQUESTIONABLY linear in comparison to this game. They both made it incredibly easy to get yourself into a position where you had to reload a much earlier save. They were not perfect games, and Fallout 3 is probably a better game than either, overall. I predict, at the least, that I'll play Fallout 3 far longer than either of the originals
Josh Kramer
wrote on Saturday 8th November 2008

I haven't played the Fallout games, so I have nothing to add there. But the whole "10/10 should be a perfect game" argument is ridiculous. It's just a rating scale. Some places like the old (and awesome) Next Generation magazine used a 5 star system. By your judgement, a 5 star game should be perfect. Clearly ridiculous. On a similar token, when the At the Movies reviewers give either a Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down (essentially a 2 mark scale), do you consider the Thumbs up rating to be perfect? It's a 2/2 score, which is universally accepted as 100%, right? And when you try to "catch" Matt at avoiding the issue, you just look hypocritical as you yourself try to dance around the score issue you brought up earlier.
aquinas
wrote on Saturday 8th November 2008

How do you explain this, then? On Metacritic: Bioshock Critics: 9.6 Users: 8.1 Oblivion Critics: 9.4 Users: 7.5 GTA: SA Critics: 9.3 Users: 7.8 Crysis Critics: 9.1 Users: 7.7 Battlefield 2 Critics: 9.1 Users: 7.7 Far Cry 2 Critics: 8.8 Users: 6.0! Fallout 3 Critics: 9.3 Users: 7.5. It is stupendously obvious that general consensus on what is meant by "10/10" does not align with what game journalists mean by "10/10". Regarding your argument using "2/2": It's rather telling that you find it necessary to construct a more ridiculous version of my argument and attack that instead.
I'm arguing for journalistic integrity. Hardly a non-issue. It's a microcosm for greater things, obviously.
Anon
wrote on Saturday 8th November 2008

You're using the user scores on Metacritic as your evidence? The site where Limbo of the Lost currently has a user score average of 9.4?
Bart
wrote on Saturday 8th November 2008

Giving a game 10/10 is not a breach of "journalistic integrity". For God's sake, MetaCritic is supposed to be used as an aggregate site - it's an average taken from tens of websites, magazines, and other periodicals that assign scores in different ways.
aquinas
wrote on Saturday 8th November 2008

I can't believe it has even been necessary to clarify this the number of times I so far have: My problem is not with the score. What *is* a breach of journalistic integrity are the _FACTUAL ERRORS_ within the content of the article and the unwillingness of the writer to even acknowledge them, let alone correct them. Such inaccuracies, in fact, that are even acknowledged by a different Thunderbolt writer further down in the comments.
aquinas
wrote on Saturday 8th November 2008

While Metacritic may not be the most reliable source, there is certainly an observable trend present.
Bart
wrote on Saturday 8th November 2008

A mistake isn't a breach of integrity - I hope you hold yourself to such high standards if that's what you believe.

And no one here is trying to deny that that's a factual error except the author himself. Personally, I'm just frustrated with your accusations and attitude.
Westy
wrote on Saturday 8th November 2008

I like how Aquinas hasn't got bored of writing the same thing for four days, surely this warrants some kind of stamina prize?
Matt Smith
wrote on Saturday 8th November 2008

Stop arguing with Aquinas, guys. Its like arguing with a homeless guy that starts screaming at you that the world will end in 2012.
aquinas
wrote on Sunday 9th November 2008

Annnd enter the Ad Hominems. When it becomes obvious to you that someone is making a legitimate complaint against you, just slander them with name-calling in the hope that you'll discredit them. Embaressing… You know, in calling Fallout 3 less linear than Fallout 2, I almost get the impression you aren't even sure what the word 'linear' actually means. Indeed, you went on in your article to call the "moral dilemmas" in Fallout "also quite linear", which doesn't really make any sense.

Bart: You're right - a _mistake_ is not a breach of journalistic integrity. What is, though, is a continued refusal to acknowledge factual errors in a public article, let alone correct them. Usually, if a newspaper makes an error, they correct themselves and make a small apology in their next issue. Why? because, being journalists, they understand that they are held accountable, and up to a certain quality standard by the public, their readers. What *is* a breach of journalistic integrity is not only the refusal to correct factual errors in a public article, but the way that Matt has instead chosen to mock and ridicule some of his readers' legitimate complaints.
Bart
wrote on Sunday 9th November 2008

Aquinas - I take it you haven't been following the discussion in this in the forums.
Bart
wrote on Sunday 9th November 2008

And Matt, if you don't want him to argue with us, don't provoke him like that. Regardless of your opinion, you're just being childish now.
James Frazer
wrote on Sunday 9th November 2008

I'm not quite sure how dungeons and restricted spaces from Fallout 2 are regarded as 'open worlds' whereas the vast, open landscapes of Fallout 3 are linear.
Bart
wrote on Sunday 9th November 2008

Fallout = nonlinear
Fallout 2 = even less linear
Fallout 3 = even even less linear
darren
wrote on Monday 10th November 2008

You know maybe the fact that user scores for older titles tend to be higher reflects not a change in the industry's review practices, but instead the rose colored glasses that so many fans seem to have about old titles. If you ask me, it's ridiculous to try to compare the linearity of the older fallouts with fallout 3. Technology has changed, and so the possibilities of what can be done given a particular game engine have changed as well. Given what there is to work with, I think it's perfectly reasonable to make the claims the article does. It's also perfectly reasonable to say that all three fallout titles are non-linear. There's no reason to try and measure it more precisely than that. Someone with an actual grasp of methodology would realize that there's nothing to actually MEASURE. Opinion of a game is inherently opinion based, and to call game reviews actual journalism is not something actual journalists think very highly of.
Josh Kramer
wrote on Monday 10th November 2008

Good comments. Though, that last bit about "actual journalists" not considering game reviews journalism sounds like a bit of big-headed elitism if you ask me. Some guy posting an uniformed and grammatically atrocious paragraph in the user review section at GameSpot is just some guy sharing his opinion with others. On the other hand, a videogaming website that publishes reviews, previews, interviews, on location informational pieces covering major events and various other articles relevant to the gaming community can certainly be considered a journalistic entity. Really, whether you label a game review journalism or not depends on what definition (and there are several) of the word journalism you are using.
Benny
wrote on Tuesday 11th November 2008

Why does a journalist need to be investigative?

As far as I'm concerned, sites like Ars Technica and Gamasutra are gaming journalists.
Patrick Coakley
wrote on Tuesday 11th November 2008

Games journalism is no more or less important than movies or music journalism, so take that how you will. I personally see all entertainment stuff as trivial literature, meant to merely be enjoyable with no educational value. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't pretend what we all write is changing the world.
McBen
wrote on Tuesday 11th November 2008

"The DC Wasteland is no wishy-washy fantasy land, nor is it a testosterone-fueled playground for blood-thirsty beefcakes."

I actually laughed at the last part of that sentence. Good show, sir!
Matt Wadleigh
wrote on Tuesday 11th November 2008

Patrick said it better than I did.
aquinas
wrote on Thursday 13th November 2008

http://computergames.ro/en/games/viewitem/id/1002/name/fallout-3/section/review.html

This is more like it.
Bart
wrote on Thursday 13th November 2008

Cool, another obscure video game site that has a different opinion from us. Sorry our review doesn't line up with your favorite.
James Frazer
wrote on Thursday 13th November 2008

Has that website ever heard of paragraphs?
Patrick Coakley
wrote on Thursday 13th November 2008

"Has that website ever heard of paragraphs?"

I was gonna say the same thing about this review, actually. It seems too spaced together. Someone should go in and edit the formatting a bit.
Ollllllly
wrote on Friday 14th November 2008

Oh jeez, there's so much wrong with that website, and review for that matter. Eight pages to the review? That's a hell of a lot of work on the reader's behalf, and I haven't read much of it. But already there's so much wrong with the pros and cons section - embarrassing dialogues? not-original songs? XD XD
Tony
wrote on Monday 1st December 2008

Okay, this is the problem with reviews and reviewers these days.

He went on and on about the game, listed a tremendous amount of flaws with the game and complained about a number of potentially major issues, then gave it a friggin 10?

Reading your review, I would say you should have scored it an 8 or 9 at best…. 10 is a "perfect" score.
Richard
wrote on Monday 1st December 2008

There is no such thing as perfect so I don't think a 10 constitutes a perfect score; it's more like a pinnacle of gaming, as good as it can possibly get. I don't agree with it as I think there are too many flaws, but it's definitely one of the games of the year and if someone wants to give it a 10 that's perfectly fine, it's all opinon.
Anon Y. Mous
wrote on Friday 10th July 2009

There is no such thing as perfection. To quote Keiichi Sigsawa, “The world is not beautiful, therefore it is.” The beauty of imperfection is something that should never be overlooked.

Anyway, I love the original Fallout games. This should be considered more of a spin-off (like Tactics) than anything, but it’s still amazing and is my favorite game of 2008.